Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 474 of 2018 Appellant :- Chhabindra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Mr Ashok Kumar Mishra,Mr Rakesh Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
As indicated in the counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A., notice has been served personally on respondent No.02, yet no one has appeared on his behalf to oppose the bail prayer in the instant appeal.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This appeal has been filed against judgement and order dated 06.12.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.02, Sonbhadra passed in Bail Application No. 925 of 2017 (Chhabindra Singh vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 480 of 2017, under Sections 376 I.P.C. and 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Kotwali Robertsganj, District Sonebhadra, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that order of the learned court below rejecting bail application of applicant-appellant is bad in law. It is further submitted that it is a classic example of misuse of provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecutrix is aged about 37 years and the manner in which the prosecutrix has alleged commission of rape on the face of it appears to be improbable. It is next submitted that in fact the husband of the prosecutrix had contested the election of Pradhan in which the appellant had advanced Rupees one lac to her husband. On being demanded, it was refused by him which resulted in bitter relations between them. The version of rape is not supported by the medical report. The medical examination was conducted on the same day and in the vaginal smear report no spermatozoa was seen. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that learned court below has also failed to consider that appellant has no criminal history to his credit and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Thus the appellant, who is in jail since 11.11.2017, deserves to be released on bail.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail prayer.
Having heard the submission of learned counsel of both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of the appellant and nature of accusation against appellant and evidence in support of it and unlikelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, I find that a case for bail has been made out.
In the result, appeal is allowed. The judgement and order dated 06.12.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.02, Sonbhadra is set aside.
Let appellant-applicant-Chhabindra Singh, be released on bail in aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant-appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 25.7.2018 MN/-